Ward Churchill's Victory

After more than two years of trial, the University of Colorado was found guilty of wrongful termination in the case versus Ward Churchill. Though claiming academic integrity reasons, it is by all lights clear that the University of Colorado dismissed Churchill due to an article he wrote in 2005 about the terrorist attacks of 2001. In that article, Churchill suggested the view that the terrorist attacks were not simply a case of targeting innocent civilians but that they were strategically aimed at the financial structure of the military machine of the US. Let me say a few comments about this decision.

1) It is unacceptable that the New York Times is so shamelessly biassed on the issue. When the reputation of the powerful is at stake the New York Times walks on eggshells despite all evidence against them ("Scooter" Libby got a lot more deference from the New York Times). But when the reputation of an unpopular, marginal and powerless professor is at stake the New York Times comes out of the house, bat in hand, to beat up on him and please its enraged readers. Thanks again New York Times for courageously defending the truth...

2) The issue is not a dispute between freedom of speech and academic integrity, as the New York Times says. It is entirely about academic freedom. Churchill advanced a view that may not be true but which is perfectly conceivable. As such, it should be judged dispassionately aside from nationalistic sentiments. If found lacking, one should not be offended by its falsity. Plus, it presents the terrible events of 9/11 in a different light which arguably provides insight into the psychological motivations of Islamic terrorists--whether or not their motivations are justifiable. Furthermore, having no apparent Arab roots or connections with Al Qaeda, it is hard to explain Churchill's article as a conspiracy to destabilize the US. It seems to be the spontaneous work of a fellow who has a particularly critical view of his own country.

3) Finally, it is conspicuous that the jury was so intent on giving Churchill no economic reparation for the years he has been unemployed. Unable to award him no money while finding the University of Colorado guilty, they granted him a symbolic $1. They went as far as to ask the judge if they could grant such a ludicrous amount with the opposition of only one member and, when answered negatively, if they could simply replace that member. Pending further clarification, it gives the unfortunate impression that the jury was trying to apply the law reluctantly.